Probability interpretation of QM

  • Thread starter George5
  • Start date
3
0
What proof is there that Born's probability interpretation of the QM wavefunction is correct? Born published two papers in 1926 that supposedly shed light on this subject. Does anyone know where I can find english translated versions of these works?

Does anyone know of any accessible research papers that demonstrate proof of the probability interpretation?

I know that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle would indicate that probability is an important part of QM, but has anyone used it to show that Born's interpretation is correct?

Also, are there any research papers about how experimentation has shown Schrodinger's interpretation of the wavefunction is incorrect? He thought that it represented a continuous electric charge density distribution. According to Born, measurements using Geiger counters and wilson cloud chambers prove that Schrod's interpretation is clearly wrong. How can I learn about this? Do you know of any papers on the subject?
 
605
1
I don't know about experimental refutations of Schroedinger's interpretation; but I do know that Lorentz published a paper showing that if particles didn't exist as Sch. claimed, then that the waves of his theory would undergo dispersion and we wouldn't observe localised entities in nature.
Strictly speaking, you can't prove that Born's interpretation is the correct one compared to any other that makes identical predictions (like Everett or de Broglie-Bohm). (Strictly speaking in fact one cannot prove anything in science; one can only try to disprove it and fail repeatedly.) His interpretation was hailed as such a success because it was the first interpretation that correctly predicted the results of experiments- to incredible accuracy, one might add. The Everett interpretation (or interpretations of his interpretation) makes identical predictions, and is the second most widely held amongst physicists; if Born's version could be proved no-one would believe anything else.
 
869
3
The Born rule just says that the complex conjugate of the wavefunction is the probability density function. The proof of this is demonstrated constantly in double slit or countless other quantum experiments.
 

Related Threads for: Probability interpretation of QM

  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Posted
2
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Posted
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Posted
3 4 5
Replies
101
Views
12K
  • Posted
Replies
5
Views
1K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top